Appeal 6003972

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: - whether the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’); - the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, - the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, and; - if the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. It sets out that the construction of a new building in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, unless it would constitute one of the exceptions set out in Paragraph

The Framework goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy NE6 of the [name] and Development Plan (adopted

(‘SDLP’) defines the Green Belt. It states that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will not be approved except in very special circumstances, and that development will be permitted where the proposal is consistent with the exception list in national policy subject to all other criteria being acceptable. In doing so it is broadly consistent with the Framework.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out circumstances where development in the Green Belt will not be inappropriate. The Council assessed the proposal against exceptions (d) and (g) of this paragraph, found that the proposal would not meet these criteria, and considered exceptions (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) to not be relevant in this case.

The appellant’s stated position is that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, however I have not been directed to any of the specific exceptions set out in Framework paragraph 154 or any other relevant paragraph of the Framework, nor has the Council’s assessment in these respects been specifically disputed. References are made to PPG2 and the [name] 1998, however both documents have been superseded by more recent policy and do not, therefore, carry weight in this regard.

Consequently, based on the evidence before me, I find that the proposal, as a new building, would amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and has both spatial and visual aspects. The proposal would be significant structure in terms of its height, width and volume, and would be noticeably larger than the building that it would replace. It would have a material harmful impact upon the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms. I accept that given the location of the proposal in the well-screened enclosure and close to other buildings that the loss of openness in visual terms would be less significant, however there would nevertheless be lesser harm in this regard also.

Overall, I therefore conclude that the proposal would lead to a harmful loss of openness of the Green Belt.

Presently, buildings within the appeal site are screened to large extent by the existing boundary walls and surrounding vegetation. However, although the character of the footpaths, tracks and bridleway which pass the site to the north and south is rural, parts of various buildings within the appeal site are visible and it is nevertheless clear that the site contains several substantial buildings and is a commercial operation of some form. The proposal where visible, would be seen in this context.

The proposal would represent a larger structure than currently exists. It would also directly abut the boundary wall. Given the height of the proposed building, it would be perceivable above the boundary wall in contrast to the largely imperceptible existing building. However, even though visible, such views would amount primarily to roof slope, which would rise to an apex away from the boundary wall. Therefore, the proposed building, although visible, would not be an unreasonably dominating feature and views would be filtered to a moderate extent by vegetation during summer months.

In terms of design, the proposal would be relatively utilitarian, which, given the use of the building is understandable. It would reflect the design and materials used for other buildings within the wider site.

Therefore, although I have found that the proposal would lead to loss of openness, I find that it would not lead to unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with SDLP Policy BH1 which, among other things, states that new developments should respect existing character.

I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development that would harm openness. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

It is stated that the proposed building would provide a higher quality of accommodation for boarding animals, as well as improved working conditions for staff members, and that running costs would be reduced, to the overall benefit of the business. However, there is no indication that the current building is wholly unsuitable, or that it could not be improved without replacement, or that similar improvements could not be achieved with a smaller, less harmful building. Nor is there any suggestion that the business would become economically unviable should the appeal fail. These factors together reduce the weight that I can afford to these considerations.

The proposal would provide opportunity to accommodate solar panels on roof slopes, be generally more energy efficient and would utilise reclaimed materials to a limited extent. While these factors would represent benefits of the proposal, the extent of these improvements over the existing situation has not been wholly qualified, nor has it been shown that green energy improvements could not be delivered without the need for a larger building than that which currently exists. The use of reclaimed materials would not be unique to the appeal proposal and carries only limited weight as benefit of the scheme.

The proposal would increase security at the appeal site by preventing the scaling of the boundary wall, however, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate a history of intrusion or criminal activity at the appeal site, or that it is currently particularly vulnerable in this regard. Whilst it also stated that the proposal would also improve privacy, I saw that the height and nature of the current boundary treatment means that views into the site from [site address] are currently extremely limited, and any benefit in this respect would therefore also be limited.

It has been put to me that the proposal would bring about an improvement to the landscape. Given that the site is in the Green Belt, where great weight is afforded to the retention of openness, it does not follow that large and inappropriate development would amount to landscape improvement. Moreover, the appeal site is well-enclosed and largely surrounded by dense, mature woodland and trees. There is no indication that it is currently significantly harmful, and it therefore follows that the proposal would not result in an improvement of any notable extent, if at all.

It is also claimed that the appeal proposal would achieve redevelopment without a reduction in openness. [name] have set out above, the appeal proposal, due to its larger size and the increase in the height of the wall would, inevitably, lead to loss of openness in both spatial and visual terms.

A further factor put before me is that the proposal amounts to innovative design. [name] have found that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area in terms of its design, such lack of harm does not mean that it can be considered innovative or an exemplar of contemporary design. The design of the proposed building is functional and would appear to be similar to other, similar, kennel buildings on the appeal site and elsewhere. Although not harmful, it would also be largely unremarkable in terms of its design approach and quality.

The proposal includes a commitment to provide bat boxes and biodiversity net gain. There is no dispute that the proposal would result in a net gain in excess of the required 10%. It would, therefore, represent an additional benefit of the proposal. However, in absolute terms, the extent of the gain would be modest, amounting to 0.02 units, which means that the weight to which I afford this net gain is commensurate to this.

The appellant has highlighted that the appeal site is well located to local amenities. Even if I were to agree, given the nature of the proposal and the use of the appeal site, these are not factors which would weigh in its favour.

I am aware that the Council has granted planning permission for other new buildings at the appeal site. However, the detailed circumstances of these approvals have not been put before me, and in any event would relate to buildings, of unknown size in other locations with the appeal site. Based on the provided evidence, there is no indication that the Council has acted inconsistently or that any form of fallback position would exist. I have considered the appeal proposal on its specific merits.

The appellant is clearly dissatisfied with the conduct of the Council in relation to the proposal. However, I am required to consider the proposal on its planning merits, and therefore these concerns to do not carry any weight in the determination of the appeal.

In summary, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt. The Framework requires me to give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt.

As a whole, the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Having regard to Framework paragraph 11(d)(i), this provides a clear reason to refuse the development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and the other considerations before me do not indicate that I should make a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.